Ice9 wrote:I agree with you but the success of a company is measured by the profit generated, companies can't stay in the red forever, the success Linux achieves is (more or less) independent from that.
You are correct about what makes a successful company in the investors eyes, we are on the same page on this. But allow me to deviate from that view of a successful company. The topic was Red Hat, a company running in the black (or close to it). How many companies are running in the black today? I personally don't want to see a large profit margin, sure that's good for the investor, but I'm a consumer not an investor. I believe there are other measurements to determine a companies success other than just pure profit margins.
Not having a large profit margin could mean a few things. It could mean that the product sucks and they can't sell it. It could also mean that there is heavy competition and the product is sold at the lowest price and you also have to develop the best product (lots of other free alternatives, competition is good for the consumer). It could also mean that profits are reinvested in R&D and other expenses. I believe with Red Hat it's a combination of everything but the first one (their product doesn't suck).
I use the Red Hat product because it works better than anything else out there (M$ being at the top of the list of "anything else") and it's a great value, among other reasons. I don't use it because they have the largest profit margin. If Red Hat had to do the sneaky things that Micro$oft does to be a high profit company then I wouldn't use Red Hat. Red Hat can never be a Micro$oft as far as profitability because of the competition that will always be there.
Micro$oft has what they have through anti-competitive practices. Does that mean Red Hat's product is worse? Far from it. Does that mean Red Hat is a less successful company? I guess it depends on how you measure success. I don't consider it success when you have to resort to dirty tactics to get that success. If you look just at the dollars then M$ is probably the most successful company out there. If you measure success by who has created the most billionaires by taking food from the plates of the masses then I suppose M$ is the most successful company in history. Luckily I believe their day is coming.
I would almost say that Red Hat is more successful than Micro$oft. When your product is the equivalent of "water" and you can get it anywhere, at no cost, and can continue to make a profit then I would think that is a grand success. Red Hat does this by making the packaging of the "water" nicer than most of the others. They also take steps to try and ensure the water is pure or purified. They also provide training on how to use the water.
Micro$oft, on the other hand sells proprietary Coca-Cola, except in this analogous world there are no other brands of soda, only Coca-Cola, proprietary, closed and expensive. Rotten deals have been made so that every ice chest sold must include a 2 liter bottle of Coca-Cola and can not include water. All restaurants and fast food joints must sell Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola alone and the justice department sides with them because no-one could eat a Big Mac without needing a Coca-Cola to wash it down. If only they knew about "water". It won't make you fat, it's better for you, you'll live longer if you drink water, it's much less expensive (or free), and it can be used for many more things than Coca-Cola can (I guess Coca-Cola can also be used to clean the tarnish off of coins so I'll give them that one). Nope, I don't believe the world needs more "successful" companies like M$.
Now how did I go and get off on that tangent? What a load of rambling that was. :)
